Where is this Collusion Investigate: Ukrainian Government Officials tried to Help Hillary Clinton and Undermine Donald Trump
BIAS MEDIA AND WITCH HUNT … WHERE IS INVESTIGATION THAT HILLARY CLINTON COLLUDED WITH UKRAINIAN’S?
As the bias and liberal media conducts a Russian witch hunt on President Donald Trump, fueled by illegal leaks, weak-kneed establishment Republicans and a faction of Never-Trumper individuals, they all seem to have completed neglected the actual collusion that took place between Hillary Clinton and the Ukrainian government. That is correct, collusion. I would ask, what is the difference? Why is it Trump collusion when investigations have gone on for months and nothing has been found and when Hillary actually does collude, mum is the word? From the Politico, hardly alt-right news, comes the story of collusion between Ukrainian government officials who tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Donald Trump. Imagine that? So where is the investigations? Oh, that’s right, this does not fit the bias media’s liberal agenda and talking points to get Trump and overthrow a duly elected president. Instead, we go after Trump and his people for using Russian dressing on their salad, for drinking white or black Russians and eating chicken Kiev.
Forget the fact that Hillary Clinton had connections with Russia … why did Bill Clinton get paid $500,000 for a speech in Russia? Why did Secretary Hillary Clinton allow sale of United States uranium resources to Russia? Use your heads folks, you are being played by the MSM, Democrats, the LEFT and loser establishment Republicans who care more about power than this country and its people.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
Yet Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.
Hillary Collusion … What difference does it make, the MSM will never investigate it
Folks, you really need to read this Politico piece, it is very informative an the MSM will never discuss it.
The Ukrainian antipathy for Trump’s team — and alignment with Clinton’s — can be traced back to late 2013. That’s when the country’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Manafort had been advising, abruptly backed out of a European Union pact linked to anti-corruption reforms. Instead, Yanukovych entered into a multibillion-dollar bailout agreement with Russia, sparking protests across Ukraine and prompting Yanukovych to flee the country to Russia under Putin’s protection.
In the ensuing crisis, Russian troops moved into the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, and Manafort dropped off the radar.
Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.
UPDATE I: With Hillary Clinton, there was no intent to collude, there was actual collusion. So where is the outrage?
Peter Hasson of The Daily Caller reminded everyone of a Politico report detailing the coordination between the two: Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative Alexandra Chalupa met with Ukrainian government officials for dirt on Paul Manafort, who at the time was rumored to replace Corey Lewandowski as Donald Trump’s campaign manager.
Once Manafort officially became Lewandowski’s replacement, Chalupa shared her opposition research on Manafort with the DNC, and they were ecstatic about it.
The Ukrainian government denied the allegations made in the Politico report, but their denial was undercut by former Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko admitting “that he was assigned to work with Chalupa” and that “they were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa.”
The DNC simply claimed that Chalupa’s coordination with the Ukrainian government were her actions alone.
Profiling Project, Independent Group Releases Report on Seth Rich Murder Investigation … Murder was More Likely Committed by a Hired Killer.
WAS IT A BOTCHED ROBBERY OR A HIRED KILLER?
The death of DNC worker Seth Rich continues to be an unsolved crime. Rich was murdered in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of D.C. 11 months ago on Sunday July 10, 2016, at approximately 4:19 AM. The DC police are calling a random robbery gone terribly wrong. However, a group of George Washington University graduate students calling themselves the Profiling Project have released a report on their own investigation into Seth Rich’s murder and have come up with quite a different conclusion. According to Profiling Project. They published their findings on Tuesday in an 83-page report that was also reported by Newsweek, hardly a right-wing publication. Te report says, the “death was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer,” and that the killer is likely still at large. So what to make of this? Newsweek and other media outlets previously have gone out of their way to debunk the Wikileaks-Rich connection. Now they are publishing a story like this?
Read the full Project Profile report HERE.
DNC worker Seth Rich was murdered in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of D.C. 11 months ago and his killer is still on the loose.
Now, a group of George Washington University graduate students calling themselves the Profiling Project are releasing a report on their own investigation into Rich’s murder.
D.C. Police tell the 7 ON YOUR SIDE I-Team that Seth Rich’s murder is still being investigated as a botched robbery.
The Profiling Project doesn’t buy it. A report just issued by the Profiling Project says the murder was more likely committed by a hired killer.
Kevin Doherty, the Chief Investigator of Profiling Project says, “It’s a possibility. A proficient killer is what we think, the fact that the killer has gotten away with it for this period of time and that it appears to be a very sanitized crime scene certainly shows some level of proficiency in killing.”
With all that entails with the back story of Seth Rich, one would think that this was one investigation that law enforcement, Democrats and the MSM would want to find out the truth as to what happened. Instead, it is just the opposite. Maybe if it was a conspiracy between the Russians and Trump they would put an independence counsel on the case.
How is Robert Mueller Allowed to Be Independent Special Counsel When Special Counsel Statute Specifically Prohibits It Because of Conflict of Interest (VIDEO)
ISN’T THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, SUPPOSED TO BE INDEPENDENT?
What would the LEFT be saying today if the individual picked to be the Independent counsel investigating the Russian hacking and any so-called involvement of Donald Trump and obstruction of justice was a friend and mentor of Trump? This is a legitimate question. According to the special counsel statute, it specifically prohibits individuals from serving if he/she has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.” The language is mandatory as it states “shall” disqualify himself. It does not say, might, kinda or sort of. Shall means shall. Gregg Jarrett of Fox News is 100% correct in that Robert Mueller has no business being the independent counsel. Mueller has a complete conflict of interest. The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners. One has to wonder how Mueller was selected in the first place. Unless the fix is in.
28 CFR Section 45.2 provides in part:
Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution …
(c) For the purposes of this section:
(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. … Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons (outside his or her family) or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
It does not matter whether Robert Mueller is an honorable man or a Boy Scout. Provisions like this are put in to maintain that there is no appearance of impropriety. It takes the subjectivity out of such an investigation. Honestly, who thinks some one can be objective to the man that fired his friend? If Robert Mueller was truly a man of honor as so many claim, he would understand and admit he is woefully conflicted and recuse himself. The canons of ethics and the law are greater than any one person and the blood lust to destroy them. Or are they?
The Washington Post is reporting that Robert Mueller is now investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice, examining not only the president’s alleged statement to James Comey in their February meeting, but also the firing of the FBI Director.
If true, this development makes the argument even more compelling that Mueller cannot serve as special counsel. He has an egregious conflict of interest.
The special counsel statute specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.” The language is mandatory. He “shall” disqualify himself. Comey is substantially involved in the case. Indeed, he is the central witness.
The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners. Agents have quipped that they were joined at the hip while at the Department of Justice and the FBI. They have a mentor-protégé relationship. The likelihood of prejudice and favoritism is glaring and severe.
So, it is incomprehensible that the man who is a close friend of the star witness against the president… will now determine whether the president committed a prosecutable crime in his dealings with Mueller’s good friend. Mueller cannot possibly be fair in judging the credibility of his friend versus the man who fired him.
Is the special counsel now motivated to retaliate against the president for ending Comey’s career at the FBI? Will he be tempted to conjure criminality where none actually exist?
Even worse, are Mueller and Comey now “colluding” by acting as co-special prosecutors to bring down the president? By meeting in advance of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, did they plan Comey’s testimony to depict Trump in the most incriminating light? These are legitimate questions that invite serious concerns.
UPDATE I: USA Today – Robert Mueller should recuse himself from Russia investigation: William G. Otis is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, a former federal prosecutor, and former special counsel for President George H.W. Bush.
Former FBI director is too close to his successor, James Comey, to be impartial.
Robert Mueller is a man of integrity with a long record of public service. In the abstract, he would be the right selection as special counsel in the Russia investigation. Under the specific circumstances of this case, however, with his longtime friend James Comey at the center of the inquiry, Mueller’s the wrong choice. The public cannot be as sure as it needs to be of his objectivity.
This is true for reasons similar to those that prompted Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the same investigation. Sessions testified Tuesday that he felt he had no proper choice because he had a potential political conflict of interest, having been a campaign adviser to President Trump. Mueller should likewise step away because he has a potential personal conflict of interest, having been a longtime friend of a crucial witness, Comey, and Comey’s key ally at the most important moment of his career.
Mueller and fired FBI Director James Comey are best buds. Family vacations, picnics, hours spent at the office, and a few cocktails after work. As an impartial arbiter Mueller will be tasked to determine whom he believes, but Muelller is predisposed to believe his friend Comey. Wouldn’t you? The elements of obstruction of justice can be highly interpretive, so expect some legal exposure for our president.
Comey stated that he “leaked” the Trump meeting memo to The New York Times to stimulate the appointment of a special counsel. That admission is enlightening. As the Director of the FBI, Mr. Comey had the authority, stature and responsibility to deal with a violation of law. What he appeared to lack is courage or conviction.
The fact that Comey leaked the memo places him in some legal jeopardy. He could be charged with two federal violations. Should we expect to place Mueller into the position to investigate his dear friend? Even if Mueller believes himself capable of being impartial, our hearts will usually override our minds.
Why Mueller should step down as special counsel or recuse himself from any aspect of the investigation involving Comey:
THE WITCH HUNT CONTINUES …
Despite no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia during the 2016 presidential election, the witch hunt continues. Thus, there has been no evidence after months and months and months of investigations, this charade continues. This has nothing to do with finding out the truth, its a political war against President Trump.
Former FBI Director James Comey’s Second Meeting with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch was a Frosty Exchange Where He Confronted Her About Political Interference
THIS IS THE SCANDAL THAT SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION …
As reported at Circa, former FBI director James Comey told members of Congress in closed-door meetings that he confronted former Attorney General Loretta Lynch over her alleged interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.According to reports, the meeting got very tense when Comey confronted Lynch about possible political interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation after showing Lynch a sensitive document she was unaware the FBI possessed. Comey told lawmakers that during the meeting, he confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a communication between two political figures that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton. WOW!!! Folks, this would be obstruction of justice. According to the account, Comey said “the attorney general looked at the document then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office.” It had been previously known that Comey testified that Lynch told him to call the FBI criminal investigation a “matter.”
This is all starting to make sense as the dots are connected and who really committed the real collusion and crimes
Ex-FBI Director James Comey has privately told members of Congress that he had a frosty exchange with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year when he confronted her about possible political interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation after showing Lynch a sensitive document she was unaware the FBI possessed, according to sources who were directly briefed on the matter.
During his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee last Thursday, Comey alluded to the second exchange after publicly discussing an encounter with Lynch, where she ordered him not to refer to the criminal probe of Clinton’ handling of classified emails not as an “investigation” but rather as a “matter.” He suggested it smacked of political spin rather than the way professional law enforcement officers talk.
“That concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI’s work and that’s concerning,” Comey testified.
Comey told lawmakers in the close door session that he raised his concern with the attorney general that she had created a conflict of interest by meeting with Clinton’s husband, the former President Bill Clinton, on an airport tarmac while the investigation was ongoing.
During the conversation, Comey told lawmakers he confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a communication between two political figures that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton.
Comey said “the attorney general looked at the document then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office,” said one source who was briefed.
Liberal Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein of California has actually called for an investigation into this situation. This is unraveling very fast for Democrats.